Charlotte's blog

Perfect weather.

A long wait for expectant crowds.

Passed in the blink of an eye.

The proposed stadium has been in the news again this week, as a Cornwall Council full meeting voted not to fund it.

I signed the petition calling for a stadium for Cornwall because I support it.

It was always clear that this was a dream coming forward at an economically challenging time – good for Cornwall’s economy if a 10,000 seater stadium proved commercially viable despite that.

I welcomed the fact that an independent report concluded a stadium is feasible.

Even though I didn’t accept their conclusion that Truro would be the preferred location; there are other places with better transport connections, which would benefit as much or more from investment.

When the planning application came forward, as a Councillor I represented the concerns of local residents about traffic impacts; not least on the already congested roads around Cornwall’s major hospital, routinely described as “over capacity” in Cornwall Council planning documents.

In the current context of Government and local authority spending cuts, investment in vital transport infrastructure in Cornwall is indefinitely delayed (Penzance Harbour, Falmouth docks, park and rail ride at Treluswell, trunk road improvements…).

There is some planned investment – not least in housing – which is welcome and long overdue. But there are also many unmet publicly deserving calls on Cornwall Council’s capital investment.

I agree with the Councillors who last Tuesday voted against Cornwall Council contributing over £10 Million to the stadium – private sector investment will come forward if it is commercially viable.

It would be good if more of the Council’s funding allocation decisions received such vigorous and detailed open debate and scrutiny.

This week, a local business magazine carried reactions to the news that Cornwall may qualify for a third round of European regional funding from 2013. One of these reactions – from Toby Parkins – suggested the way in which Cornwall’s economy lags behind the UK may be the result of a bigger than average proportion of retired people in the population.

If anything, the opposite is true. People retiring here with work-related pensions and the capacity to buy in the local housing market is one of the reasons why house prices, disposable incomes and retail potential exceed the capacity of local earned incomes.

The evidence that incomes are lower shows that, currently, wages and earnings in Cornwall are about 80 per cent of the UK average.

The almost one in three workers who are employed by the public sector are paid on national pay scales. That is why the Tories and Liberal Democrats seeking to regionalise public sector pay would be bad news for Cornwall’s economy – it would drive down the family incomes of workers in the public sector.

More than two out of three workers are employed in the private sector, which pays below average wages in Cornwall. In 2001, four out of ten jobs were advertised below the level of the minimum wage when it was first introduced. This is why the Tories and Liberal Democrats cuts to working tax credits are bad news for many Cornish families. There are many local businesses which reduced workers’ hours to weather the recession – its one reason why unemployment here is lower than the UK average. Cuts to working tax credits are a short cut to higher unemployment if these local families can’t manage on reduced incomes.

Previous European funding – with Labour in government – brought Cornwall a university, employment training and support for people, investment in rail and other infrastructure, and growth for many local businesses. In government, the Tories and Liberal Democrats have cut and indefinitely deferred planned investment in maritime and other infrastructure for Cornwall. As another of the business commentators said “I’d rather be running a business in Cornwall where EU support is available than one where it’s not.”

Truro is currently developing a local plan. On Friday at Trelander community centre we drew together the main elements of the plan, which also includes Kenwyn.

For the first time, we have a consensus on where new housing should go. We have identified land allocations to meet local housing need by applying sustainability and other criteria.

Before the National Planning Policy Framework saw the light of day on Tuesday, the housing and economy groups – which I chair – had adopted an approach based on sustainability including brownfield and town centre first; we have a fifteen year land supply.

Community and business representatives have contributed to the development work, which is well-supported by Cornwall Council officers.

Four of the Cornwall Councillors in the plan area – two Tory, two Liberal Democrat – weren’t at the meeting on Friday (one of these came in at lunchtime, but didn’t contribute to group discussion, another contributed in some previous meetings). As the plan moves forward – and given what the NPPF has to say about local plans – I hope these Cornwall Councillors will get clearly behind it.

It is to Labour’s credit that growth and jobs were foregrounded in the budget statement. But the Tory and Liberal Democrats’ approach is less than convincing with very few specific commitments to investment in infrastructure and a lack of detail on the plans – for example – to create employment opportunities for young people.

Despite the assertions about fairness, what George Osborne didn’t say is that many on low incomes will be worse off as a result of today’s announcements.

Last week it was confirmed that the fragility of Cornwall’s economic recovery since 2001 means we will once again be eligible to receive European regional investment as our GDP is only three quarters of the UK average.

To link that to today’s budget, almost one in three jobs in Cornwall is in the public sector. Of course, as public sector pay freezes are eased, many families will also feel better off as personal allowances rise. But the fact is that, because private sector wages in Cornwall are at least 20 per cent below the UK average, plans for regional public sector pay would make it more difficult to recruit here and reduce the disposable income which is currently spent in local retail and other businesses.

There was very little in the budget statement about welfare or benefits, other than the amended child benefit changes. When the personal allowance rises, people on income related welfare benefits and tax credits will not receive more.

But every one of the high rate tax payers – who are also being given a five per cent tax cut – and all those whose incomes mean child benefit is being removed, will then see their income rise by the personal allowance increase.

The Lord Chancellor sits on a woolsack, but it is George Osborne who is trying to pull the wool over our eyes as he gives the better off more and does nothing to help those who can least afford it.